VOICE OF THE PEOPLE | December 21, 2012

By THE CHRONICLE HERALDPublished December 20, 2012 - 6:08pm Last Updated December 20, 2012 - 7:41pm

Average: 3.7(3 votes)

Of course, we believe you

I see Peter MacKay has obviously taken up a new vocation, that of comedy writer. In his Dec. 18 piece on the Opinions page entitled “Fighter jets: Government will get best value for tax dollars,” he would have us believe that the Conservative government and his Defence Department are making every effort to do just that.

After reading that piece, one simply has to believe the government is, on its own initiative, doing its utmost to get the best possible deal on CF-18 fighter jet replacements and keeping the taxpayer well-informed. We believe you, Mr. MacKay, we surely do, just like we believed you on the Bill Casey issue. And we believe you like we did on the helicopter training flight out of Labrador, and several other issues too numerous to mention here. Oh yes, we do believe you, Pete, we surely do.

Ernest Wilson, Elmsdale

Nice try, Pete

Regarding the opinion piece “Fighter jets: Government will get best value for tax dollar” (Dec. 18): I read Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s discussion regarding the possible purchase of the ongoing fiasco (a.k.a. purchasing F-35 aircraft) and I must admit that I was very amused. I noted several issues pertaining to Mr. MacKay’s argument.

First of all, in his discussion, Mr. MacKay includes pilot salaries as part of the expenditures for procurement. Fair enough (although somewhat confusing since all CF pilots are paid by taxpayers anyway). Regardless, later on in his article, he states that “absolutely no taxpayer money has yet been spent on acquisition costs for a replacement.” That statement, in itself, is ludicrous since all bureaucrats (and Mr. MacKay himself), and all CF personnel involved in the analysis of the proposed purchase of this aircraft are fully funded and paid for by Canadian taxpayers.

Nice try, Pete, and better luck next time.

Ernie Muehleisen, Eastern Passage

Speaking of regression

Is it only myself, or do others see the irony in Ken Whitehead’s letter of Dec. 17?

Mr. Whitehead takes Irwin Barrett to task for what Mr. Whitehead sees as Mr. Barrett’s wish for “yesteryear and regression,” while showing support for a government that, through the passage of several bills over the past 18 months, has the Canadian economic model racing, hell-bent for leather, toward the type of society which Charles Dickens so eloquently exposed as inhumane in the 1830s.

Robert Brannen, New Maryland, N.B.

Son not like father

Timothy Lambert (Dec. 15 letter) misunderstood when he said I attributed separatist leanings to Justin Trudeau, who stated in a Radio Canada interview that because of Stephen Harper’s policies, he would “think about wanting to make Quebec a country.” My point was that he does not share his late father’s views that there would never be a reason to justify breaking up Canada.

I don’t think that Trudeau has separatist leanings, as federal government policies are irrelevant to separatists, but for him to even suggest that the unpopular policies of the present prime minister would be reason to justify breaking up Canada shows that he is not the staunch federalist that his father was.

Canada has had 22 prime ministers, some of whom tarnished our reputation on the world stage, but we recovered; and Stephen Harper is not doing anything that cannot be rectified by a future prime minister. Relations and reputations can be restored, as we have seen Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton do in the international community after the disastrous George Bush era. The bottom line is that an unpopular prime minister would never be a reason to justify the breakup of this country.

Michael White, Dartmouth

Adding insult to injury

Re: the Dec. 15 opinion piece “Bloomfield property: a catalyst for change” by Denise Peterson-Rafuse, chair of the Nova Scotia Housing Development Corporation and minister of Community Services.

How can Ms. Peterson-Rafuse have the gall to proclaim that “the NSHDC proposal is a starting point to engage the community in a conversation about how this development should fit with the neighbourhood and serve its needs,” when she also states that “Imagine Bloomfield has thoughtfully and carefully articulated a vision for its community”?

Why didn’t NSHDC work with IB to begin with? This just makes me crazy. From my point of view, the minister has only added insult to injury.